Bug 1312409

A general comment for this package and the other ones: there's nothing wrong with %{with_py3k}, but so far people have been using %{with_python3}. I'd recommend renaming the macro, to make things just a bit more standard between packages.

Can you expand the description a bit more to say what "docutils backend" means (you can use it to provide input in a different format or ...)?

The same as for other packages: can you build python 2 and 3 packages from the same directory? Also, is the python2 and python3 documentation significantly different? If not, you should package just one version of the documentation.

nosetests-%{python3_version}

sphinx-build-%{python3_version}

I don't think you need to convert LICENSE to html. Most people will read it in the terminal, where rst is totally ok.

Same as for other packages, you don't need to preserve the timestamp of modified files.

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> A general comment for this package and the other ones: there's nothing wrong
> with %{with_py3k}, but so far people have been using %{with_python3}. I'd
> recommend renaming the macro, to make things just a bit more standard
> between packages.

I don't much care what the macro name is, so I'll make this change.  I didn't see this before updating a couple of other packages tonight, I'm afraid.  I have made this change in the local copies of all spec files I'm submitting, though, so this change will show up if I make any more modifications, or on import if not.

> Can you expand the description a bit more to say what "docutils backend"
> means (you can use it to provide input in a different format or ...)?

Okay, I have expanded the description a little to try to shed some light on this.

> The same as for other packages: can you build python 2 and 3 packages from
> the same directory? Also, is the python2 and python3 documentation
> significantly different? If not, you should package just one version of the
> documentation.

In my opinion, there should either be a separate -doc package or, when the documentation is small (as in this case), it should go into both packages so that it is available to people who install just one or the other.

> nosetests-%{python3_version}
> 
> sphinx-build-%{python3_version}

Done.

> I don't think you need to convert LICENSE to html. Most people will read it
> in the terminal, where rst is totally ok.

Okay, I've made this change.

> Same as for other packages, you don't need to preserve the timestamp of
> modified files.

Done.

New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-pybtex-docutils/python-pybtex-docutils.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-pybtex-docutils/python-pybtex-docutils-0.2.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

+ latest version
+ license is acceptable (MIT)
+ license file is present, %license is used
+ provides/requires look OK
+ python_provide is used
+ %check is present and passes
+ no scriptlets
+ rpmlint false positives only

I didn't check that the package works, but this will get tested with #1312410, so no need to test now.

Package is APPROVED.

Thank you!  New package requested.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-pybtex-docutils